Roe v Wade is on deck

[Loren Pechtel]

Not true, at least in some states. Oregon for example, which has basically no restrictions:

Oregon Health Authority

• Abortion is legal in Oregon.
• You do not need to be a resident of Oregon or a U.S. citizen to get abortion services in Oregon.
• Oregon has no restrictions on abortions based on how far along in pregnancy you are.
• There are also no required waiting periods before receiving an abortion.
• There are no restrictions on getting medication abortion pills by mail within Oregon.

While medical providers may refuse to give you abortion services based on their personal beliefs, they cannot interfere with your legal right to choose to have an abortion. If you are refused an abortion, please know there are providers who will help you obtain abortion services in Oregon. See here for where to get an abortion in Oregon.

You can ‘choose’ all you want but that choice is not a reality if no one and no medical facility will perform the procedure.

Toni, they literally provide a list of places that absolutely *will* provide abortions at any point in the pregnancy.

Seriously, you're clinging to this "no doctor would ever do that" belief, even when OHA is telling everyone where to go to do the thing you insist can't ever happen.

Look, you and Elixir and bilby and a few others have expressed your beliefs that abortions should be legal and available at any point in the pregnancy, with no restrictions - that's correct, isn't it?

If *you* hold that belief, what on earth makes you think that no doctors exist that hold that same belief? If a doctor holds the belief that abortions should be legal and available at any point with no restrictions... why do you think they would refuse to perform the procedure they truly believe should be an absolute unqualified right?

Except it doesn't say that. There's no state mandated limit, that doesn't mean a doctor is going to say yes to a third trimester without medical reason. Having no restriction is about letting the patient and doctor decide on what risk to the woman is acceptable; what fetal defects are acceptable.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not true, at least in some states. Oregon for example, which has basically no restrictions:

Oregon Health Authority

• Abortion is legal in Oregon.
• You do not need to be a resident of Oregon or a U.S. citizen to get abortion services in Oregon.
• Oregon has no restrictions on abortions based on how far along in pregnancy you are.
• There are also no required waiting periods before receiving an abortion.
• There are no restrictions on getting medication abortion pills by mail within Oregon.

While medical providers may refuse to give you abortion services based on their personal beliefs, they cannot interfere with your legal right to choose to have an abortion. If you are refused an abortion, please know there are providers who will help you obtain abortion services in Oregon. See here for where to get an abortion in Oregon.

You can ‘choose’ all you want but that choice is not a reality if no one and no medical facility will perform the procedure.

Toni, they literally provide a list of places that absolutely *will* provide abortions at any point in the pregnancy.

Seriously, you're clinging to this "no doctor would ever do that" belief, even when OHA is telling everyone where to go to do the thing you insist can't ever happen.

Look, you and Elixir and bilby and a few others have expressed your beliefs that abortions should be legal and available at any point in the pregnancy, with no restrictions - that's correct, isn't it?

If *you* hold that belief, what on earth makes you think that no doctors exist that hold that same belief? If a doctor holds the belief that abortions should be legal and available at any point with no restrictions... why do you think they would refuse to perform the procedure they truly believe should be an absolute unqualified right?

Except it doesn't say that. There's no state mandated limit, that doesn't mean a doctor is going to say yes to a third trimester without medical reason. Having no restriction is about letting the patient and doctor decide on what risk to the woman is acceptable; what fetal defects are acceptable.

The MAGA Delusion

Why They Think They’re Arguing with Facts but Never Are

therationalleague.substack.com

Let's see if it can single post it and not double post and then double delete...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What a crock of faux Captain Obvious shit.

Highways and roadway curves are designed for a particular speed. Physics would force cars to fly off them when exceeding that speed by a FoS or two. Additionally, we have statistics that can look into whether speeds should be increased or decreased based on accidents, deaths, incidents that have been observed as well as looking back at decades of data regarding how fast can reliably be expected to drive safely on.

The bolded is only partially true.

First off, most roadways aren't designed for any particular speed at all - they're designed to allow for people to get from point a to point b. REsidential roads aren't designed based on physics at all, they're designed *around* the layout of the houses. Many state roads aren't designed around physics, they're simply laid out to avoid terrain obstacles in a reasonable fashion.

Disagree. You can typically look at a road and pretty much judge it's speed limit. Occasionally you see spots where the apparent engineering doesn't match the speed limit, usually for some external factor. Around here, expect to find a cop running radar at such points. And when the external factor goes away the cops stop running radar. (For example, the half-mile feeding our place. It's clearly a 35. But when we moved in there was one chunk not developed that caused the road to narrow and caused it to be a 25. A cop on the quarter mile street was common. They eventually built out that chunk, the limit went to the 35 it should have been, I've seen a cop there once since then. Did the street at that spot change in any way? No, it was purely due to the whole mile having the same speed limit.)

Even without such things speed limits are often set based on how much they cut the terrain to smooth out the road. Again, clearly a road engineered for a speed.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, because doctor have to adhere to ethical standards or risk license removal.

There are no ethical standards in place regarding abortion.

 

[Emily Lake]

Seriously the “listing” (listed where?) probably means “we don’t do very late term emergency care” or something like that.

The listing was provided to you several pages ago. Apparently it's yet another of those posts that you've pretended not to read so that you could then pretend it doesn't exist.

Where Can I Get an Abortion? | U.S. Abortion Clinic Locator

Quickly search the largest directory of trusted abortion providers in the U.S. Updated weekly.

www.abortionfinder.org

 

[Emily Lake]

If she had actually gone to the actual website advertisement where she could have seen this:

View attachment 49823

"delivery of a stillborn". It says nothing about actually killing the fetus.

Wow, you're kind of digging all the way down into pedantry here. It's an abortion. It's not removal of an already stillborn fetus. The fetus is killed in the process, so that by the time it's actually removed, it's stillborn. But it's not stillborn when they start the procedure.

 

[Emily Lake]

My position has been very consistent from start to finish.

Here, how about you elaborate on what exactly you think I've changed my tune on, and provide supporting evidence for your claims?

No. The problem is you seem to have two positions.

You are very consistent about anything in the first two trimesters, medical reasons in the third. The problem is with "medical reasons", you seem to want the politicians involved in making that decision

No, I don't want politicians involved in making the decision. Nothing I have posted supports your false inference. Doctors are making the decision... but the decision requires documentation of a medical reason.

despite the fact that the track record is the many of the politicians insist there is no medical reason and are quite willing to sacrifice the woman in upholding that belief. You seem to want justice from a kangaroo court.

All of this ^^^ is irrelevant, because it's based on you persistently mischaracterizing my position and inserting things that aren't there.

 

[Emily Lake]

A woman who, at 38 weeks decodes she dies not want to continue to carry the pregnancy—please believe me when I say that is most pregnant women at 38 weeks gestation— does not go to her doctor or hospital or clinic and say; I’ve changed my mind. Do an abortion. Because guess what? That choice would not be given to her. She’d be treated to some serious intervention by mental health professionals and kept under close observation until the baby was delivered.

You're conflating *shouldn't* based on what you and I believe with *doesn't*. And in a handful of states, it is defined in law as completely legal at any point with no restrictions at all.

A doctor would have no standing to refuse, and no standing to require mental health intervention.

Why do you think a doctor couldn't refuse? You can't compel a doctor to treat a patient other than if they are an employee in a facility that handles emergencies, and that requirement extends only as far as dealing with the emergency. (By working in such a place a doctor has implicitly agreed to deal with whatever emergencies come through the door. You knowingly put someone in peril, you are obligated to do your best to resolve that. The pilot can refuse the flight, the pilot can't jump in the middle of the flight. And you implicitly put people in peril by hanging out the "ER" sign, you must follow through on the label.) You are not describing an emergency, the doctor is free to say "I will not do this."

Sure, sure, and bakeries are free to say "no I won't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple" too. Oh wait...

 

[Emily Lake]

My position has been very consistent from start to finish.

Here, how about you elaborate on what exactly you think I've changed my tune on, and provide supporting evidence for your claims?

No. The problem is you seem to have two positions.

You are very consistent about anything in the first two trimesters, medical reasons in the third. The problem is with "medical reasons", you seem to want the politicians involved in making that decision despite the fact that the track record is the many of the politicians insist there is no medical reason and are quite willing to sacrifice the woman in upholding that belief. You seem to want justice from a kangaroo court.

In fairness, Emily's "position' has evolved to replace politicians with a duo of doctors. At least in some cases.

My position NEVER INVOLVED POLITICIANS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

 

[Emily Lake]

A doctor would have no standing to refuse, and no standing to require mental health intervention.

Why do you think a doctor couldn't refuse? You can't compel a doctor to treat a patient other than if they are an employee in a facility that handles emergencies, and that requirement extends only as far as dealing with the emergency. (By working in such a place a doctor has implicitly agreed to deal with whatever emergencies come through the door. You knowingly put someone in peril, you are obligated to do your best to resolve that. The pilot can refuse the flight, the pilot can't jump in the middle of the flight. And you implicitly put people in peril by hanging out the "ER" sign, you must follow through on the label.) You are not describing an emergency, the doctor is free to say "I will not do this."

If the doc refused, and that WAS a violation of the pergnant person's civil rights as Ems has suggested before, WHY ARE THERE NO CASES OF SUCH LITIGATION?

BECAUSE ABORTION IN THE LAST TRIMESTER HAS NEVER BEEN A RIGHT

I know, it's absolutely crazy that you can't find rights-based legal challenges for things that aren't rights. Downright shocking, I say!

On the other hand, you've framed it as something that *should be* a right. This my point: If it were a right, then it could not be denied. Denying it would be a violation of that woman's rights.

 

[laughing dog]

My position has been very consistent from start to finish.

Here, how about you elaborate on what exactly you think I've changed my tune on, and provide supporting evidence for your claims?

No. The problem is you seem to have two positions.

You are very consistent about anything in the first two trimesters, medical reasons in the third. The problem is with "medical reasons", you seem to want the politicians involved in making that decision despite the fact that the track record is the many of the politicians insist there is no medical reason and are quite willing to sacrifice the woman in upholding that belief. You seem to want justice from a kangaroo court.

In fairness, Emily's "position' has evolved to replace politicians with a duo of doctors. At least in some cases.

My position NEVER INVOLVED POLITICIANS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

When you refer to possible legislation, politicians are involved.

 

[Emily Lake]

What a crock of faux Captain Obvious shit.

Highways and roadway curves are designed for a particular speed. Physics would force cars to fly off them when exceeding that speed by a FoS or two. Additionally, we have statistics that can look into whether speeds should be increased or decreased based on accidents, deaths, incidents that have been observed as well as looking back at decades of data regarding how fast can reliably be expected to drive safely on.

The bolded is only partially true.

First off, most roadways aren't designed for any particular speed at all - they're designed to allow for people to get from point a to point b. REsidential roads aren't designed based on physics at all, they're designed *around* the layout of the houses. Many state roads aren't designed around physics, they're simply laid out to avoid terrain obstacles in a reasonable fashion.

Disagree. You can typically look at a road and pretty much judge it's speed limit. Occasionally you see spots where the apparent engineering doesn't match the speed limit, usually for some external factor. Around here, expect to find a cop running radar at such points. And when the external factor goes away the cops stop running radar. (For example, the half-mile feeding our place. It's clearly a 35. But when we moved in there was one chunk not developed that caused the road to narrow and caused it to be a 25. A cop on the quarter mile street was common. They eventually built out that chunk, the limit went to the 35 it should have been, I've seen a cop there once since then. Did the street at that spot change in any way? No, it was purely due to the whole mile having the same speed limit.)

Even without such things speed limits are often set based on how much they cut the terrain to smooth out the road. Again, clearly a road engineered for a speed.

What's the obvious-to-basic-judgement designed speed limit for a straight road on level ground with no curves?

 

[laughing dog]

A doctor would have no standing to refuse, and no standing to require mental health intervention.

Why do you think a doctor couldn't refuse? You can't compel a doctor to treat a patient other than if they are an employee in a facility that handles emergencies, and that requirement extends only as far as dealing with the emergency. (By working in such a place a doctor has implicitly agreed to deal with whatever emergencies come through the door. You knowingly put someone in peril, you are obligated to do your best to resolve that. The pilot can refuse the flight, the pilot can't jump in the middle of the flight. And you implicitly put people in peril by hanging out the "ER" sign, you must follow through on the label.) You are not describing an emergency, the doctor is free to say "I will not do this."

If the doc refused, and that WAS a violation of the pergnant person's civil rights as Ems has suggested before, WHY ARE THERE NO CASES OF SUCH LITIGATION?

BECAUSE ABORTION IN THE LAST TRIMESTER HAS NEVER BEEN A RIGHT

Before there was legislation against abortion, it most certainly was a legal right.

 

[Politesse]

Since we are nitpicking evolution: we are clearly not evolved to eat human. Specifically, we are vulnerable to prion disease.

By that logic, we are most certainly not "evolved to eat" any sort of livestock, as nearly all of our serious epidemic diseases have a zoonotic origin.

On the other hand... IIRC the proportion of plants that are toxic for us to eat is massively higher than the proportion of animals that are toxic for us to eat. And I'm not talking about just mammals, but rather the entirety of the kingdom animalia - there are relatively few animals, birds, fish, moluscs, insects, etc. that are unsafe for us to eat. Not necessarily tasty, mind you, but largely edible.

Not pufferfish, nor some jellyfishes, and I think some butterflies though I'm not sure. Probably wouldn't recommend poison dart frogs either .

If my understanding of primeval Savannah woodland ecology is on fleek, our evolution-approved diet consists of boro nuts. Lots and lots of boro nuts. With the occasional turtle, pig, or duiker for protein. But the real point is that arguments from nature or "what evolution wants" are usually disingenuous. Evolution affects us, but it has no agenda, and it doesn't fine tune. Humans do, addressing our physical limitations with complex social and cultural adaptations. But we cannot and do not wish to live as our ancestors did. 1.8 million years of itinerant foraging did impact our biology in some interesting ways - more relevant to this discussion is that unwanted children were probably a vanishingly rare phenomenon for most of that time, and one easily and ethically solved to boot - but no one is actually volunteering to return to that lifeway, and those that do live that way are despised or infantilized by most other cultures on the planet. It is a dishonest or at least fundamentally inconsistent line of argument.

 

[Toni]

A woman who, at 38 weeks decodes she dies not want to continue to carry the pregnancy—please believe me when I say that is most pregnant women at 38 weeks gestation— does not go to her doctor or hospital or clinic and say; I’ve changed my mind. Do an abortion. Because guess what? That choice would not be given to her. She’d be treated to some serious intervention by mental health professionals and kept under close observation until the baby was delivered.

You're conflating *shouldn't* based on what you and I believe with *doesn't*. And in a handful of states, it is defined in law as completely legal at any point with no restrictions at all.

A doctor would have no standing to refuse, and no standing to require mental health intervention.

Why do you think a doctor couldn't refuse? You can't compel a doctor to treat a patient other than if they are an employee in a facility that handles emergencies, and that requirement extends only as far as dealing with the emergency. (By working in such a place a doctor has implicitly agreed to deal with whatever emergencies come through the door. You knowingly put someone in peril, you are obligated to do your best to resolve that. The pilot can refuse the flight, the pilot can't jump in the middle of the flight. And you implicitly put people in peril by hanging out the "ER" sign, you must follow through on the label.) You are not describing an emergency, the doctor is free to say "I will not do this."

Sure, sure, and bakeries are free to say "no I won't bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple" too. Oh wait...

Yes, those are exactly the same thing, with the same level of importance and regulatory oversight, etc.

 

[ZiprHead]

If she had actually gone to the actual website advertisement where she could have seen this:

View attachment 49823

"delivery of a stillborn". It says nothing about actually killing the fetus.

Wow, you're kind of digging all the way down into pedantry here. It's an abortion. It's not removal of an already stillborn fetus. The fetus is killed in the process, so that by the time it's actually removed, it's stillborn. But it's not stillborn when they start the procedure.

Can you show me from the description of the procedure the point where the fetus is killed?

 

[Elixir]

Yes, those are exactly the same thing, with the same level of importance and regulatory oversight, e

You never heard of the Bake-o-cratic oath?
The board of yeastly ethics?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There still are limits, though.

The limits can even be extended, but they're still limits.

The McMurtry Spéirling is a record-breaking, track-focused, electric hypercar with a unique fan-based downforce system, envisioned by Sir David McMurtry, and is limited to 100 units, with deliveries starting in 2025

WANT ONE!

View attachment 49825

The McMurtry Spéirling can handle over 3G of cornering force thanks to its unique active downforce system using twin fans, allowing it to corner at speeds and in ways that are otherwise impossible

Just to be clear, if the car is doing 3Gs, so is the driver! I'd also presume the tires will matter as well.

 

[Elixir]

There still are limits, though.

The limits can even be extended, but they're still limits.

The McMurtry Spéirling is a record-breaking, track-focused, electric hypercar with a unique fan-based downforce system, envisioned by Sir David McMurtry, and is limited to 100 units, with deliveries starting in 2025

WANT ONE!

View attachment 49825

The McMurtry Spéirling can handle over 3G of cornering force thanks to its unique active downforce system using twin fans, allowing it to corner at speeds and in ways that are otherwise impossible

Just to be clear, if the car is doing 3Gs, so is the driver!

My thought exactly. Not too bad for a second or two, but taking a long sweeping curve at 3gs might require a fighter jet-style pressure suit to keep the driver from passing out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not thinking 3G will make someone pass out, but your neck will feel it.